Janklow v. Planned Parenthood

Supreme Court of the United States · 1996 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsCertiorariFacial challengescertiorari deniedfacial challengeas-applied challengeSalernono set of circumstances

Facts

The memorandum addresses the proper standard for evaluating facial constitutional challenges. Justice Stevens discussed the Court's prior language in United States v. Salerno stating that a facial challenge must fail unless there is "no set of circumstances" in which the statute could be validly applied. He characterized that language as unsupported, unnecessary to Salerno's holding, and inconsistent with later cases that used other standards, including a "large fraction" approach in the abortion context. He stated there was no need for the Court to disavow Salerno's language unless a federal court had actually denied relief by relying on that dictum in a case where a facial challenge would otherwise succeed.

Issue

Whether the Court should grant certiorari to address and disavow the "no set of circumstances" language from Salerno as the governing standard for facial challenges, particularly in the abortion context. More specifically, the question was whether there was a sufficient reason to intervene at this stage based on lower-court use of that language.

Rule

The fact that a legislative act might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is not enough to render it wholly invalid. But the rigid Salerno dictum that a facial challenge must fail unless there is "no set of circumstances" in which the statute could be validly applied does not accurately state the general standard for facial challenges and need not be affirmatively disavowed unless a federal court has used it to deny relief where a facial challenge would otherwise succeed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The city council of Tucson, Arizona, adopts an ordinance requiring permits for outdoor amplified events in public parks. Elena Ruiz brings a facial constitutional challenge, arguing that in a few imaginable situations the ordinance could be applied to suppress protected speech, even though the ordinance plainly covers many routine concerts and festivals that could be regulated lawfully.

Under the governing approach described in the opinion, which is the strongest response to Elena's facial challenge?

Explanation. The opinion reaffirms the narrower principle that a law is not wholly invalid on its face merely because it might operate unconstitutionally in some conceivable circumstances. That possibility alone is insufficient. At the same time, the opinion rejects a rigid rule that one valid application automatically defeats every facial challenge.